While expressing “full support” for a court proposal to disclose settlements involving judges accused of harassment, the California Judges Association said would-be amendments to judiciary rules go too far.

The proposed changes to Rule of Court 10.500, unveiled by a committee last month, would make public all judicial misconduct settlements—not just those related to harassment—dating back to Jan. 1, 2010. The committee said state public records laws require an expansive approach to disclosing publicly funded settlements.

The Judicial Council on Tuesday released public comments about the proposal. The California Judges Association, or CJA, weighed in.

“Some CJA members have expressed concern that the disclosure of settlement agreements would be contrary to the understanding that the agreements would remain confidential despite case law interpreting” open records rules, CJA president Stuart Rice, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, wrote in the public comment.

The amendments should focus solely on settlements involving harassment claims, Rice said, not all forms of judicial misconduct. The expansive language “would require the release of settlement agreements that resolve frivolous and/or meritless claims in order to avoid litigation and thereby save the public additional and needless expenditures,” Rice wrote.

The judges association's comments were among five filed by bench officers and court executives from around the state. Most letters expressed similar themes. They support the chief justice's goal of holding wrongdoing judges accountable, but they want strict limitations on what has to be released to the public.

“Possibly the work group could consider a threshold figure of settlements under $50,000 to be excluded from disclosure,” Shasta County Superior Court executive officer Melissa Fowler-Bradley wrote. “Absent such … there is potential for abuse by persons filing meritless claims that will have to be disclosed (for example a dishonest candidate setting up a situation against a judge running for re-election).”

Los Angeles County Superior Court Presiding Judge Daniel Buckley said his court agrees that the names of judges who enter into settlement agreements for harassment or discrimination claims should be released. But any information about complaints, evaluations and investigations of judicial officers should remain secret, he wrote.

“It would be inconsistent with the constitutional structure of the” Commission on Judicial Performance “to require disclosure of investigations required in support of the CJP unless and until there is public discipline,” Buckley wrote. “An effective judicial discipline system requires seamless integration of these responsibilities with those of the CJP.”

The group that drafted the proposed rule changes, as well as the Judicial Council's Rules and Projects Committee, will consider the comments and make possible changes before the final amendments are sent to the full Judicial Council on May 24.

Read more: